Maximizing research and development resources: identifying and testing “load-bearing conditions” for educational technology innovations
- 639 Downloads
Education innovations often have a complicated set of assumptions about the contexts in which they are implemented, which may not be explicit. Education technology innovations in particular may have additional technical and cultural assumptions. As a result, education technology research and development efforts as well as scaling efforts can be slowed or made less efficacious because some of these basic assumptions (called load bearing conditions) about the match and prerequisites for the innovation are not met. The assumptions-based planning model is adapted as a methodology to help identify the load-bearing conditions for innovations. The process and impact of its use with two cases of education technology-oriented research and development efforts is reported. The work demonstrates the potential value of this LBC process for recruiting, selecting, and supporting research sites, for innovation designers to target efforts that strengthen implementation and support of scaling. Recommendations are made for others engaged in partnerships with education providers around developing, implementing and testing new education technology based innovations in more effective ways.
KeywordsResearch and development Implementation Assumptions-based planning Scalability Education technology Innovations Formative evaluation
The authors would like to thank Robin Shoop and the Robot Algebra and BLOOM team members for their contributions to the process described in this manuscript.
This work was made possible by two National Science Foundation-funded Projects: Robot Algebra Project (DRL-1029404) and Modeling Engineered Levers for the 21st Century Teaching of STEM (DRL-1027629).
Compliance with ethical standards
The work described in this manuscript is not considered human subjects research by the University of Pittsburgh’s Institutional Review Board.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bickel, W. E., & Iriti, J. E. (2012). Study of organizational context characteristics that influence implementation of robotics units. Pittsburgh, PA: Evaluation for Learning Project, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh. Google Scholar
- Boulet, G. (2009). Rapid prototyping: An efficient way to collaboratively design and develop e-learning content. Retrieved from www.guyboulet.net.
- Cavanagh, S. (2014). K-12 district leaders evolving into smarter ed-tech consumers. Education Week, 33(35)Google Scholar
- Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Key lessons about the relationship between research and practice. In C. E. Coburn & M. K. Stein (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 201–226). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Culp, K. M., Hawkins, J., & Honey, M. (1999). Review paper on educational technology research and development. Waltham: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center.Google Scholar
- Dewar, J. A., Builder, C. H., Hix, W. M., & Levin, M. H. (1993). Assumptions-based planning: A planning tool for very uncertain times. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
- Dickard, N. (Ed.) (2003). The sustainability challenge: Taking ed-tech to the next level. Washington, DC: The Benton Foundation Communications Policy Program & EDC Center for Children and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.benton.org/publirary/sustainability/sus_challenge.html.
- Education Superhighway. (2014). Connecting America’s students: Opportunities for action. Retrieved from http://www.educationsuperhighway.org/uploads/1/0/9/4/10946543/esh_k12_e-rate_spending_report_april_2014.pdf.
- European Commission. (2013). Opening up Education. Europa.eu memo Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-813_en.htm.
- Iriti, J. E., Nelson, C. A., & Bickel, W. E. (2010). Ball-Rowland Unified School District partnership evaluation report. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
- Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (2000). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kessler, A., Boston, M., & Stein, M. K. (2014). Conceptualizing teacher’s practices in supporting students’ mathematical learning in computer-directed learning environments. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 1). Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
- Kraus, R. (2008). Inquiry teaching methods: A multiple case study. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Martin, P. (2014). Navigating choice: Toward better ed-tech product discovery. Digital Promise: http://www.digitalpromise.org/blog/entry/navigating-choice-toward-better-ed-tech-product-discovery.
- Molinar, M. (2014). Startups in education set record in raising money. Education Week, 33(8).Google Scholar
- Molinar, M. (2015). Evaluating the outlook for the ed-tech industry in 2015. Education Week, Marketplace K-12 blogs. Google Scholar
- Open Education Challenge. (2014). Open Education Challenge “The Results.” www.openeducationchallenge.eu.
- Raudenbush, S. W. (2007). Designing field trial of educational innovations. In B. Schneider & S. McDonald (Eds.), Scale up in education (Vol. II). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Schunn, C. D., & Stein, M. K. (2010a). The Robot Algebra Project. Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation ITEST Collaborative Research Strategy. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
- Schunn, C. D., & Stein, M. K. (2010b). Modeling Engineered Levers for the 21st Century Teaching of STEM. Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation DRK-12. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
- Schunn, C. D., & Stein, M. K. (2013a). The Robot Algebra Project: Final Report. Submitted to the National Science Foundation. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
- Schunn, C. D., & Stein, M. K. (2013b). Modeling Engineered Levers for the 21st Century Teaching of STEM: Interim Report. Submitted to the National Science Foundation DRK-12. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
- Shoop, R. (2012). Robotics education research partner expectations. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon’s Robotics Academy.Google Scholar
- White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2014). In Preparing Americans with 21st Century skills: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education in the 2015 budget. www.whitehouse.gove/ostp.